Beauty and Ugliness in Nature: Do They Exist?
By Heathclyff St James-Deville
Does the way that we subjectively view Nature have a far-reaching impact on how we relate to the living creatures found within Nature? I include here all the Elemental Beings – the Dryads, the Fai, the Water Sprites, as too the Mischievous Imps, for they all matter. It is important to note that I view the Individual Being as equal in importance to that of the group. We speak of the “Species” as somehow separate from the animal singular which, again, impacts on how we treat these beings.
One author used as the title of his book, THE SOCIAL CREATION OF NATURE[i] which begs the question, Is Nature Created by our perception? Is Nature nothing more than a Social Construct? I think not, for if we create Nature by our own subjectivity, then where will this take us in the future? Cloning and genetically altering plants and animals for our own ends is already one problem that stares me in the face[ii], the other – the patenting of LIFE by the greedy arrogance that we are somehow ‘above Nature,’ a concept known as ALGENY.
[A] term… coined by Dr. Joshua Lederberg. It means to change the essence of a living thing by transforming it from one state to another; more specifically, the upgrading of existing organisms and the design of wholly new ones with the intent of “perfecting” their performance.[iii]
We tend to describe things around us, or that we come into contact with, as either being Beautiful (attractive) or Ugly (repulsive); Good (beneficial / benevolent) or Evil (detrimental / malevolent). In relation to Nature and those who reside within Her world, these views can – and indeed do – have tremendous repercussions.
A useful definition of Beauty is found in the article: Is Beauty Relative? by Ruth Phelps and which appeared in THE ROSICRUCIAN DIGEST of September 1953:
Beauty is the manifestation of the creative force in man, in others, and in the world outside man, as perceived on this second level – that is, subjectively. On this level, Ugliness is lack of Beauty; or, to put it another way, it is lack of that which is pleasing to the inner being. It is lack of creative force, or the failure to use or perceive it. An old building may be ugly objectively, but it may be beautiful subjectively through its inner values. A period of deep trouble is ugly if viewed objectively – that is, on the first level. But viewed subjectively, judged by its spiritual values, it is beautiful. Ugliness, then, is lack of Beauty; it is man’s failure to use and perceive the creative force of Divine Mind. A thing is Ugly because the one perceiving it lacks the creative force.
Whilst the Indian Educationist, Mr. V. N. Bhushan (1909-1951), writes in THINGS OF BEAUTY: [iv]
Beauty is not that which simply tickles our senses or yields us momentary pleasure. It is not that which merely comprises of symmetry, variety and colour. It is not a mere reconciliation of matter and sensation on the one side with intellect and spirit on the other. Nor is in a thing of intellectual content and aesthetic experience. Beauty includes all this, and at the same time is above and beyond all of them, beauty cannot be explained by any formula or illustrated by any figure.
Please do not think that I do not have an appreciation for goodness and beauty, nor regret for evil and the ugliness that evil gives begets. My hope here is merely one whereby we take our subjective worldview and expand it to the objective world, in relation to the things found within Nature, and vice-versa. Hopefully, this will move us to see animals in a better light. We may still fear the snake, the bat, the cockroach or the spider. However, when we learn to see animals as a part of the glory of the natural world, we may see the snake, the bat, the cockroach and the spider, as creatures to be admired.
Even where we may view something as “Ugly,” it is important to see that even these play an important role in their life here on earth. Take away some of these “Ugly” animals and insects and we may be kissing a given plant species “Goodbye” – and, life being interconnected, such would inevitably flow on to other plants etc. Authors, Martin J Hodson and Margot R Hodson[v] inform us that:
All the views above [Anthropocentric, egocentric and biocentric] will result in the protection of some biodiversity, but they all tend to leave some species out because they are not “useful” or “pretty”, large enough to be easily visible, or whatever. Only when we protect biodiversity holistically for its intrinsic value will we maximize protection, and decrease loss of species
Do people care about the humble fly as an important part of the world; of Nature? It may interest you to know that over a 100,000 scientific papers have been produced in relation to experiments utilizing flies. Back in the 1970s there was much research carried out to produce mutant flies – bicaudal was born without a head or much of a body, Antennapedia had a extra pair of legs but they were attached to where the antennae should have been; the work of Hermann Muller.[vi]
Researching about flies proved extremely difficult for these creatures are viewed as ‘ugly’ and the spreaders of disease. However, one author writes: “…the benefits which man derives from flies far outweigh their nuisance value and the damage they may do to crops. There are a great many species of flies that are active pollinators of plants. The parasitic flies are continually controlling the numbers of destructive insect pests. Many of the aquatic flies form the major item of food for fish, particularly stream-inhabiting fish such as trout and young salmon. Although we do not like to see a dead animal seething with countless thousands of white maggots, nevertheless , in this regard, the flies are performing a useful function in reducing such dead organic matter to a form which can eventually be utilized by plants. From a purely aesthetic point of view, if man destroyed all flies then many of the birds that brighten the countryside with their cheerful songs and brilliant colours would also vanish”[vii]
So all things are connected; all things should thus be respected.
For a full copy of this Paper (about 14 pages), please send me your request to: Almanac64@mail.com. Please specify PDF or WORD. Comments are also welcome on this topic for it is a work in progress
[i] Evernden, N. (1992) John Hopkins University Press
[ii] Roosters hen-pecked into sex change by Grant McArthur, Herald-Sun August 27, 2009 p.11
[iii]Cited in the book, ALGENY by Jeremy Rifkin (1984) Penguin Books
[iv] Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 2001 From the Preface p.ix
[v] CHERISHING THE EARTH: How To Care for God’s Creation (2008) Monarch Books UK p.34-35
[vi] Brookes, M. (2002) FLY: The Unsung Hero of 20th Century Science, Phoenix UK
[vii] Urquhart, F.A. (1964) Frederick Warne and Co, London [Revised Ed. Of 1949) p.208
We at Theosophy Downunder (www.theosophydownunder.org) would like to make the following contribution from one of our late members. Bernie passed away many years ago, but his spirit of compassion for all sentient beings lives on in his words below:
Man's Responsibility to the Animals
by Bernard Parsons
The ancients held that animals should be treated with respect. The Jains of India made concern for animal life an important feature of their religious life. In Spartan Greece, a community that went overboard in imposing a fierce code of discipline on its citizens, they would punish a child who was found guilty of cruelty to an animal – characteristically if not wisely – with death. The Hindus teach that even as the humans received the divine fire of knowledge of the difference between right and wrong so many millions of years ago, so in a similarly far distant time some animals will when ready take the next step into human-like self consciousness.
In the mean-time, animals are our responsibility. We do this best, not by fussing too much over them but most certainly by not taking advantage of them. I think it is monstrous that today in a country pledged to the ideal of freedom, animals are vivisected cruelly, not for the impersonal advancement of science but so that some researcher might receive praise from his peers for the results of his experiments. On a less horror-filled note, and there is plenty of horror in the subject of vivisection, many instances exist of a special rapport between certain animals and humans and certain sorts of animals and other species.
Perhaps you have heard the saying that people grow to look like the pets they keep? Perhaps the link was there before those persons were born. The Aborigines of Australia at a time of initiation into manhood appoint to each candidate a totemic bird or beast. This beast he may not kill or eat, and it is said between the man and his totemic animal a bond of trust grows. There are instances in plenty of animals seeking contact with humans. On the North-West coast of Australia at a little hamlet called Monkey Mia, dolphins have for years come into the shallows to be patted, fed, and to introduce their young to the locals swimming there. A zoologist from England studying the dolphins was packing up his gear while his son was having a last swim in the autumn evening before they left off work for the year. The dolphin the man had been particularly studying came up to the eleven-year old lad, put his head between the boy’s legs and gave him a ride round the boat harbour!
Another marvellous story is that of a farmer who had the care of an eagle that was injured in a storm. The farmer later retired and came to live in South Melbourne. The eagle had come back for short visits at the farm, but one day the farmer found the eagle sitting on the back fence of his South Melbourne home. It had sought him out and found him, from among so many similar dwellings, at such a great distance from their original home. I was given a strong lesson in good manners by a pointer bitch mothering five pups. As they became ready for weaning she continued to play with them a little but mostly she would jump up to a place out of reach and let the pups tumble over each other ‘til meal time came. At last there was only one pup left and mum set to work to play games with it. She chased the pup and rolled it over and ran away in pretended fright, followed by the enthusiastic pup. I saw this stately old hound doing this and I laughed. She never played with that pup again whilst I was watching and it took me a week to get her to wag when I patted her.
There is the case of swans who mate for life and such is their constancy that should one die the mate joins a group for company but never mates again. There is the case of the sun bird which will build a large oval decorated nest commonly near a house, in northern Australia. People hang ropes down in hope the birds will build on them. The birds show little fear of mankind and will fly into the house and out again without showing fear.
Many animals show flashes of almost human quality in their life. Another example is the albatross that breeds near Dunedin in New Zealand, which has a unique courting ritual. Two birds meeting and not having room to dance on the rocky windswept cliffs where the nests are made, the two birds take to the sky. There they spread their marvelous flexible wings, flying in ever changing harmony, a soundless dance, dipping and weaving until a rapport is established. One wonders if in the misty southern oceans hunting for fish often out of earshot or out of sight, they find each other. Is this the skill they practice in the courting dance? Find each other they do. They, too, mate for life.
Just as we share our life atoms with the animals, let us hope to their advantage, so it is conceivable that we share the life atoms of the gods. It is a brave thought. Remember the saying of Jesus the Master – In as much as you do it to the least among you so shall it be done to you. This is the great Law of Karma. It applies to every being in the universe, gods, men, animals.